In the February number of Our Day, the magazine edited by Joseph Cook, in an editorial notice of the presentation of the Sunday-law petition to Congress, we find the following:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.1

“The Seventh-day Adventists, whose chief aim in life seems to be to break down the American Sabbath, are circulating a misleading counter-petition, which gives the impression that it is the religious observance of the Sabbath which the great petition asks Congress to promote, whereas nothing is asked beyond protection of Sunday rest and public worship in the domain of the National Government, as has been afforded in nearly all the States from the beginning to citizens in the domain of State governments.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.2

About the same time Mr. Crafts published a circular letter in which he said:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.3

“Prompt action on the petition is the more important from the fact that the enemies of the Sunday-Rest law, a curious combination of Saturdarians, saloonists, and a few papers, are becoming very active in the circulation of misrepresentations and misleading counter-petitions, the latter so worded as to give the false impression that we are asking for a law to promote the religious observance of the Sabbath, whereas our petition seeks only protection for Sunday rest and worship.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.4

Since so much is said about this counter-petition, it may be well to publish it, that all the readers of the AMERICAN SENTINEL may know what it does ask for. The petition reads as follows:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.5

“To the Honorable, the Senate of the United States—AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.6

“We, the undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby respectfully, but earnestly, petition your Honorable Body not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the National Constitution that would in any way tend, either directly or indirectly, to give preference to the principles of any religion or of any religious body above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion; but that the total separation between religion and State, assured by the National Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.7

Now we can compare the statements with the petition. Mr. Cook and Mr. Crafts say that this counter-petition is misleading, in that it gives the false impression that the Sunday-law people are asking for the promotion or protection of the religious observance of Sunday. But the most careful reader of the counter-petition will fail to find in it any reference whatever to the American Sunday Union, or to a petition for a Sunday law, or to the Blair bill, or to anything whatever that has been done. It simply asks that Congress shall not pass a bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or in regard to any other religious institution; nor to favor any amendment that would tend to give preference to any religion, or to any religious body, above another, but to keep Church and State entirely separate, as they were designed to be by the fathers of our country. In short, the sum of the petition is that Congress will not interfere in religious controversies, and in matters purely religious. Our Sunday-law friends claim that this is just what they want; they claim that they do not want religious legislation; they claim that they want Church and State kept entirely separate. Now if they are sincere in their protestations, why do they object so strongly to this counter-petition? Indeed, if they mean what they say when they deny the charge that they are laboring for a union of Church and State, and are so bitterly op-osed to civil interference in matters purely religious, they ought to sign the petition. Indeed, they should be intensely anxious to sign it. If their protestations are of any value, then this so-called counter-petition is not a counter-petition at all, but is exactly in harmony with their petition and their line of work, and they ought to adopt it. But they do not indorse it; they most bitterly denounce it. Then what shall we conclude? We can form no other conclusion than that they are not sincere when they say that they do not desire a union of Church and State; when they say that what their petition calls for is not religious legislation. It is the wounded bird that flutters. The hatred which they manifest to this petition, and their evident chagrin at the large number of signatures of the best people that have been secured for it, show that the petition strikes directly against their work. They show that the counter-petition asks Congress not to do the very thing that their petition desires it to do. And what is that? It asks them not to legislate upon the subject of religion, and not to do anything that tends to Church and State union. By opposing the petition which asks that this be not done they show that they want it done. In no other way could they so clearly show the real object of the Sunday-law petition, and the spirit of the Sunday-law movement, than by the bitter opposition which they make to this counter-petition. Their action in the matter stamps their movement as a movement to secure a union of Church and State, and nothing else.AMS June 12, 1889, page 153.8

Now we will have a little direct testimony concerning the matter of the religious observance of Sunday, which both Mr. Cook and Mr. Crafts say they do not desire. We will quote once more a few statements which will show clearly just what they do want. We have given them many times, but we shall doubtless be compelled to repeat them many more times, for the Sunday people persist in telling the people generally another thing from what they talk among themselves. First, we repeat the statement made by Mrs. Bateham in her speech at the Washington Convention last summer. Referring to the petitions that hung around the assembly room, she said:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.1

“As I look about this church to-night, I cannot help thinking of the fourteen million people that this meeting represents, all of whom are praying to have the holy day observed. They are praying that the Government will pass a law that will compel the people to observe the first day of the week; and people in every State of the Union are distributing circulars to secure signatures to that effect.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.2

This statement is taken from the report in the Lutheran Observer of December 21, 1888, whose editor, Dr. Conrad, was one of the speakers at the convention, and is one of the officers of the American Sunday Union. Nothing that we could say could more directly contradict the statement made by Mr. Cook and Mr. Crafts than does this statement by Mrs. Bateham. They say that their petition does not ask for the religious observance of the day, but she says that the petitioners pray to have the holy day observed. Of course, we know that there were not fourteen million petitioners, and that the day is not holy; but her statement intimates that those who signed the petition intelligently did so with the understanding that it was a request to have the day observed as though it were holy. It is true that the petition itself does not say anything about religious observance; but Mrs. Bateham says that those who sign the petition thereby pray that the Government will pass a law to compel the people to observe the first day of the week. And the fact that she calls it a holy day shows that they sign the petition with the understanding that it is to secure the compulsory observance of Sunday as a holy day. Therefore, if Mr. Cook and Mr. Crafts are so righteously indignant because their petition has been, as they say, misrepresented and made to appear as though it called f’or the religious observance of Sunday, they should turn their guns upon Mrs. Bateham. Not an enemy to the Sunday-law petition or the Sunday-law movement has said a single thing beyond what Mrs. Bateham herself has said.AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.3

Again, in the report above referred to in the Lutheran, Observer, we find the following statement made by Dr. Crafts. He said, “The bill which has been introduced makes Sunday the ideal Sabbath of the Puritan, which day shall only be occupied by worship.” That bill was introduced by Senator Blair in response to the petition which has been referred to, which was gotten up by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. Yet Mr. Crafts says that they do not want anything like religious legislation, and that they don’t petition to have Sunday observed religiously.AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.4

Again, Mr. Crafts said in his address before the general assembly of the Knights of Labor, reported in the Journal of United Labor, November 29, 1888, that “the weekly day of rest has never been secured in any land, except on the basis of religious obligation. Take the religion out and you take the rest out.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.5

Col. Elliott F. Shepard is president of the American Sunday Union. The New York Mail and Express of January 25, 1889, gives in full his address before the convention upon his election as president of the Union. In that address, he spoke of the petition as follows:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.6

“We have already been told that there are upon this petition for a National Sunday-Rest law some six millions of Protestants, and some seven millions of Romanists. The Romanists are supposed to be represented by that one signature-of Cardinal Gibbons-which was obtained with much less trouble than the greater part of the Protestants in our country. We have some six millions already on the petition, so that we have a basis to work upon; but there are still fifty-two millions of Protestants whom we must interest in this movement. We must go on; we must bring them to sign the petition for the Sabbath. We are very glad to welcome as a coadjutor the Roman Catholic Church in any branch of Christianity, or in any form of benevolent work in which it will consent to join us; but we must not forget the greater number of the population outside of that church, and we are bound to prosecute this work until we lay its binding truths of divine authority before the whole people, and bring them all into the valley of decision. Choose this day whom ye will serve; if the Lord be God, serve him; and if the world be God, serve that. You have to say yes or no-whether you will stand by the decalogue, whether you will stand by the Lord God Almighty, or whether you will turn your back upon him. The work, therefore, of this society has just begun. We do not put this work on mere human reasoning-for all that can be overthrown by human reason. We rest it directly and only on the divine commandment.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.7

Now this shows that their petition is the one that is misleading. It shows that they expect to gain a great deal more than appears on the face of their petition; it shows that they have worded their petition just so as to secure the greatest number of signatures to it. They are multiplying signatures by every means, both fair and foul-principally foul-counting in its favor thousands of people who never heard of it, as well as other thousands who have heard of it, but who know really nothing as to its real design; and then they intend to wheel these petitioners into line, as favoring their construction of the petition, and demanding a law to compel people to observe Sunday as a holy day.AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.8

We might give other quotations from the leaders in the Sunday movement, but these are sufficient. We are not dealing in conjectures, but we give the statements as they appear in black and white, upon the authority of the leaders of the Sunday-law workers themselves. If anything in our language seems to be harsh, we leave it to the candid reader to decide if it is not just. We make no scruple in charging bad faith upon the leaders in this Sunday-law movement, because we condemn them only out of their own mouths; but in so doing we wish to make no reflections upon these men as individuals. We have no doubt that personally they are very pleasant men, and that under almost any other circumstance they would reason logically and act fairly. We attribute their course, not to any inherent wickedness in themselves but to the force of circumstances. They have committed themselves to the securing of an iniquitous law, and such a law can be secured only by iniquitous methods. Religious legislation by civil Governments has always been marked by fraud and a disregard for the rights of dissenters; and when these men give themselves to such unrighteous work they can do no other than what they are doing. We pity them, and hope that some of them, at least, may see the error of their way and turn from it.AMS June 12, 1889, page 154.9

E. J. W.

“Mr. Crafts against Facts” American Sentinel 4, 20.

E. J. Waggoner

We have before us a copy of the Vineland (N. J.) Evening Journal, of April 19, which contains a report of an address on the Blair Sunday-Rest bill, delivered in that place by Doctor Crafts. From that report we make the following brief quotations, that we may compare them with the facts:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 155.1

The Blair bill, said he, is not what its enemies would have it. Blair drew this bill for the Sabbath men the same as any lawyer would draw bills for any client. Blair has drawn bills for another sect who are opposed in some degree to the American Sabbath, or a day of rest. The two bills are put together by enemies of the Rest bill, and thus misrepresentations are made. When Blair drew the original bill he used his own language, and the bill read ‘promote’ Sabbath observance instead of ‘protect.’ Enemies took the word ‘promote’ as an effort to get God in the Constitution and establish State religions-that is, religions supported and maintained by the State.AMS June 12, 1889, page 155.2

“The friends of the bill never had any desire to ‘promote’ Sabbath observance, and therefore that word was stricken out and ‘protect’ inserted, and this was done immediately, but the enemy still delights in informing the people that ‘promote’ is the word. Dr. Crafts gave a history of how the movement for Sabbath observance first started, and denied, as has been charged, that the W. C. T. U. was at the head of the move. The movement was started, not as a religious measure at all, but because some people saw that it was necessary to have a day of rest for the health of the multitudes, and that in these days of soulless corporations and combinations, it was necessary that law should stand between the ‘spoiler’ and the employes. When P. M. Arthur, the head of the Locomotive Engineers, and T. V. Powderly, the head of the Knights of Labor, each representing thousands of signatures, signed the petition for this Sunday-Rest bill, it was plain that they saw a need of a day of rest for the workingmen. Now labor organizations are taking the matter up and will carry reform out. Understand that ‘religious observance’ nor the ‘word of God’ are not mentioned in the bill, and are no part of it. The ‘Rest bill’ is for the benefit of the masses and the health of the people. The bill does not deny the right to work to any citizen in the United States, on any day of the week, provided that citizen does not engage in trade where there is competition, so that his neighbor is compelled to keep open his shop.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 155.3

We know nothing of a bill that Mr. Blair has drawn for a sect that is opposed to the American Sabbath or to a day of rest. Indeed, we do not know of any sect in the United States that is opposed to a day of rest; but whatever other bills Mr. Blair may have drawn up, the enemies of the Sunday-Rest bill have not put together nor confounded it with any other. All our strictures have been made upon the Sunday-Rest bill, without any regard to any other bill. Further, Mr. Blair did not draw up the Sunday-Rest bill just as a lawyer would draw up any bill, but has shown himself intensely partisan in pushing the bill. In the notice which the April number of Our Day gives to the hearing on the Rest bill, we find this sentence: “We subjoin from its pages some of the dialogues between Senator Blair (who showed himself matchless in cross-questioning) and the opponents of the bill.” This states the case exactly, as the reader of that hearing will see. Mr. Blair did act the part of a paid attorney, cross-questioning and arguing with the opponents of the bill, but assisting those that were praying for its passage. This may be set down as one instance where Mr. Crafts unfortunately differs with facts.AMS June 12, 1889, page 155.4

Again, concerning the relative importance of the words “promote” and “protect.” It is not true, as Mr. Crafts states, that “the enemy still delights in informing the people that ‘promote’ is the word.” It is a matter of fact that the bill was not amended, now was any substitute introduced during the session of Congress. All there is to it is this: The American Sabbath Union, at its meeting in Washington last December, saw that the statement that the bill was designed to promote the observance of Sunday as a day of religious worship, showed too plainly upon its face that it was an act to establish a State religion. Accordingly they appointed a committee to formulate changes they desired in the bill. This committee reported; and among other things was the substitution of the word “protect” for “promote” in the preamble and last clause of the bill. These changes we immediately noted, publishing the original bill side by side with the bill as the Union desired it to read; we have printed it more than once, and have repeatedly referred to the change from “promote” to “protect;” although, as it has been said before, the bill which was introduced into Congress read, “to promote its (the first day) observance as a day of religious worship,” until the bill died a natural death by the adjournment of Congress.AMS June 12, 1889, page 155.5

What Mr. Crafts objects to, however, is the fact that we have showed that the word “protect” does not conceal the object of the bill any more than did the word “promote.” We have shown again and again that so far as the people who observe Sunday are concerned, they do not need any more protection than they already have. There is abundant provision in the laws of every State for the protection of religious worship. And the bill which Mr. Blair introduced does not say that it is desired that the people shall be protected, but that the religious observance of the day shall be protected; and that can mean nothing else but that all the people shall be prohibited from using the day in any other way than as a day of religious worship.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.1

And this is just what Mr. Crafts himself has said that they desire to secure by the passage of the bill. In the Washington Convention he declared that “the bill which has been introduced makes Sunday the ideal Sabbath of the Puritans, which day shall be occupied only by worship.” So here we have No. 2 of Mr. Crafts’s unfortunate collisions with facts.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.2

Again, the report says that “Dr. Crafts gave a history of how the movement for Sabbath observance first started, and denied, as has been charged, that the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union was at the head of the movement.” Unfortunately for Mr. Crafts, we have something upon this point also. In the Union Signal of May 3, 1888, there appeared a report of a hearing which the Senate Committee on Education and Labor gave on the 6th of the preceding month to the friends of a Sunday law. Mrs. J. C. Bateham, the superintendent of the Sabbath Observance Department of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, presented the opening paper, and was followed by several ministers. The Union Signal, to which we just referred, said: “Senator Blair will now draft and present a bill for us.” This shows that the bill was introduced at the request of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.3

Again, in the hearing before the committee on Education and Labor, on Thursday, December 13, 1888, Mrs. Bateham, in replying to a question by Mr. Blair, said: “This petition work has been done chiefly by our Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. The ministry, I may say, have had almost nothing to do with it. It was started in behalf of the elevation of the masses to protect the morality of the people.” This is sufficient on that point.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.4

Mr. Crafts says that the movement was started, not as a religious measure at all, but because some people saw that it was necessary to have a day of rest for the health of the multitude. Again he says: “Understand that ‘religious observance’ nor the ‘word of God’ are not mentioned in the bill and are no part of it. The Rest bill is for the benefit of the masses, and the health of the people.” Mr. Crafts may presume upon the ignorance of the people to whom he lectures, but he ought to take some precaution to keep his lectures from getting into print, where they can be seen by those who are familiar with the Blair bill. With his statement that religious observance is not mentioned in the bill, and is no part of it, compare the preamble of the bill. We quote it with the changes desired by the American Sabbath Union, so that Mr. Crafts can find no fault with it. It reads as follows:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.5

“A bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the Lord’s day, commonly known as Sunday, as a day of rest, and to protect its observance as a day of religious worship.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.6

Now it is technically true that the term “religious observance” does not occur in this preamble; that is, the words do not occur in just that relation; but nevertheless it is plainly declared that the bill is to protect the religious observance of the day. But this is not all; the bill itself closes with the statement that “the act shall be construed so far as possible to secure to the whole people rest from toil during Sunday, their mental and moral culture, and the protection of the religious observance of the day.” Yet in the face of this Mr. Crafts wishes us to understand that “religious observance” is not mentioned in the bill and is no part of it! The reader cats draw his own conclusions as to the design of Mr. Crafts in making that statement.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.7

Again he says that “when P. M. Arthur, the head of the Locomotive Engineers, and T. V. Powderly, the head of the Knights of Labor, each representing thousands of signatures, signed the petition for this Sunday-Rest bill, it was plain that they saw the need of a day of rest for the workingmen.” Mr. Crafts is here trying to substantiate his assertions that this Sunday movement was originated solely by the workingmen and not by the churches. But it is about as nefarious a statement as the other; for, as a matter of fact, Mr. Powderly and Mr. Arthur did not indorse the petition in behalf of the thousands who had never seen it, until Mr. Crafts had labored with them for several hours, overcoming their objections. And further than this, the Union Signal, referring to the vote passed by the General Assembly of the Knights of Labor after Mr. Crafts had argued and pleaded with them, said that it was a wonderful victory achieved by Mr. Crafts. It could not have been very much of a victory to secure the signatures of those workingmen, if the workingmen had instituted the movement. There seems to be a little discrepancy here which we will leave to Mr. Crafts to explain.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.8

Once more, Mr. Crafts says that the bill does not deny the right to work to any citizen in the United States, on any day of the week, provided that citizen does not engage in trade, where there is competition, so that his neighbor is compelled to keep open his shop. If we had the space we would reprint the bill in full; but those who have files of the AMERICAN SENTINEL can find it, and can verify our statement that the bill specifies nothing of the kind. We will quote enough to show that it does deny the right of any person subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States to work on Sunday, even if he is not engaged in trade, and if there is no competition. Section 1 of the bill (and let it be understood that we are quoting from the bill as amended by the American Sabbath Union) reads as follows:—AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.9

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no person or corporation, or the agent, servant, or employe of any person or corporation, shall perform or authorize to be performed any secular work, labor, or business to the disturbance of others, works of necessity, mercy, and humanity excepted; nor shall any person engage in any play, games or amusement, or recreation, to the disturbance of others on the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, or during any part thereof, is any Territory, district, vessel, or place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; nor shall it be lawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or service performed or rendered in violation of this section.”AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.10

We advise Mr. Crafts to study the Sunday bill a little more thoroughly before he lectures again. We might dwell at length upon the last statement quoted by Mr. Crafts in regard to competition, but if we merely call attention to it it will be sufficient in this place to let the reader see that if his statement were true it would show that the Sunday movement was simply a part of a gigantic monopoly, that if carried out would eclipse anything that has ever been known. All that we designed to do in this article was to call attention to the almost constant collisions between the statements of the leaders in the Sunday-law movement and the truth. It can truly be said of them that they are not afraid of the truth, for they meet it in conflict nearly every day.AMS June 12, 1889, page 156.11

E. J. W.

June 5, 1889

June 19, 1889